Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 168

Thread: Mir vs. Wayland & effect on Linux "Ecosystem"?

  1. #111
    monkeybrain2012 is offline Grande Half-n-Half Cinnamon Ubuntu
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Beans
    874

    Re: Mir vs. Wayland & effect on Linux "Ecosystem"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stonecold1995 View Post
    So if you can call Ubuntu (or the future of Ubuntu) Linux, why do we not call OSX BSD? After all, it IS based on the Mach kernel, but no one in their right mind would use anything with "Apple" and "BSD" in the same sentence! Just because it's technically Linux doesn't mean it will carry any of the same philosophy as Linux.
    Well I for one would not want to see Ubuntu becomes to Linux as OSX to BSD. For one thing, except for the UI, most of Ubuntu is still Debian (which is not ashamed of calling itself Linux) and all software that run on Linux would run on Ubuntu and vice versa (at least in principle), that I think is good. BTW, I like the Linux philosophy and I am sure many of us who currently use Ubuntu do too.

    Edited: Not following much about the saga of Wayland and Mir, but as long as it is FOSS I don't have a philosophical problem with it. But if Canonical decides to close sourced it in the future a la Apple I am leaving.
    Last edited by monkeybrain2012; April 15th, 2013 at 01:52 AM.

  2. #112
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Beans
    77

    Re: Mir vs. Wayland & effect on Linux "Ecosystem"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stonecold1995 View Post
    So if you can call Ubuntu (or the future of Ubuntu) Linux, why do we not call OSX BSD? After all, it IS based on the Mach kernel, but no one in their right mind would use anything with "Apple" and "BSD" in the same sentence! Just because it's technically Linux doesn't mean it will carry any of the same philosophy as Linux.

    Its where it started and the fact that it is still open source

  3. #113
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Beans
    4,679

    Re: Mir vs. Wayland & effect on Linux "Ecosystem"?

    Quote Originally Posted by monkeybrain2012 View Post
    Well I for one would not want to see Ubuntu becomes to Linux as OSX to BSD. For one thing, except for the UI, most of Ubuntu is still Debian (which is not ashamed of calling itself Linux) and all software that run on Linux would run on Ubuntu and vice versa (at least in principle), that I think is good. BTW, I like the Linux philosophy and I am sure many of us who currently use Ubuntu do too.

    Edited: Not following much about the saga of Wayland and Mir, but as long as it is FOSS I don't have a philosophical problem with it. But if Canonical decides to close sourced it in the future a la Apple I am leaving.
    I agree with your edit considerably. While I love many aspects of different Linux distros, I also like using a distro that does what I need. I've tried others but Ubuntu really hits the nail on the head for my uses. I personally don't think Ubuntu will ever close their source. I think their reliance on the Linux kernel will make that exponentially more difficult (well, somewhat impossible) to do as opposed to what OSX did with BSD. I was reading the About Ubuntu page the other day where they indicate open source is at the heart and soul of Ubuntu. That is really powerful, and I hope (and expect) that their dedication to retaining the open source model will continue on indefinitely, despite whatever closed source proprietary drivers and other bits they may package out of the box.

    Come the day where Ubuntu decides to close off code and lock everything down Apple style, I will absolutely hit the road as well. That said, I would feel that same way with any other OS. Mint, Fedora, Debian. If I'm on any one of them and they lock the gates, they'll be written off as an OS I would no longer support or use. I just don't ever see that happening by any stretch of the imagination, so it's a crossroads I don't ever anticipate hitting.
    HOW TO - Set up video surveillance with "Motion"

    Buying a Lenovo? Do your research first!
    Some Lenovos have a whitelisted BIOS which prevents you from changing the wifi card.

  4. #114
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vermont
    Beans
    853
    Distro
    Ubuntu

    Re: Mir vs. Wayland & effect on Linux "Ecosystem"?

    Some fairly new information. Interesting and confirms what I thought might happen. NVIDIA has apparently (and strongly) indicated that they have zero interest in developing drivers for Wayland. That means that, as far as NVIDIA is concerned, a DE like KDE will be at a disadvantage in certain situations.

    On the other hand, NVIDIA appears to be cooperating with Canonical on the development of MIR.

    Seems to me that KDE is at a turning point. I can't see how KDEs insistence on using Wayland (if the current trend holds) will result in anything other than their future marginalization. If they want to reach beyond linux enthusiasts (in the future) this doesn't seem the way to do it, but maybe they don't care.
    Linux: You reap what you tweak.

  5. #115
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Tennessee
    Beans
    3,415

    Re: Mir vs. Wayland & effect on Linux "Ecosystem"?

    VTPoet, I think you've been victimized by some sloppy journalism at Ostatic. The "developer" who said NVidia couldn't care less about wayland support is just a member of the Nvidia forums, there's no indication that he/she/it is a developer or NVidia employee. In fact, looking at some of this person's other posts on the forum, it's clear they are not.

    Read a few of the comments (especially the first one by a KDE developer) as it dismisses a lot of the errors and FUD in that article.

  6. #116
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Beans
    19

    Re: Mir vs. Wayland & effect on Linux "Ecosystem"?

    Besides that he speaks about egl backend. Both Mir and Wayland use that. I suspect if Nvidia support either Mir or Wayland they support both in the end. If not, they support neither. They have probably not decided what they do yet. It's probably not very important for Nvidia at the moment.

    also the other part of article about KDE was apperently wrong. Greasslin wrote a long article about it
    http://blog.martin-graesslin.com/blo...t-inside-kwin/
    Last edited by hainen; April 24th, 2013 at 12:21 AM.

  7. #117
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vermont
    Beans
    853
    Distro
    Ubuntu

    Re: Mir vs. Wayland & effect on Linux "Ecosystem"?

    Quote Originally Posted by lykwydchykyn View Post
    VTPoet, I think you've been victimized by some sloppy journalism at Ostatic.
    Well then... caveat emptor. Glad to know KDE won't be left in the cold.
    Linux: You reap what you tweak.

  8. #118
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Beans
    417
    Distro
    Ubuntu 12.04 Precise Pangolin

    Re: Mir vs. Wayland & effect on Linux "Ecosystem"?

    Quote Originally Posted by VTPoet View Post
    Well then... caveat emptor. Glad to know KDE won't be left in the cold.
    Here is more information where KDE is heading: http://dot.kde.org/2013/04/24/plasma...ce-convergence

  9. #119
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Beans
    42

    Re: Mir vs. Wayland & effect on Linux "Ecosystem"?

    Quote Originally Posted by VTPoet View Post
    However, if I had to make a prediction, I expect that Ubuntu's move (if Ubuntu defaults to MIR) will marginalize the rest of the linux ecosystem (if the rest stubbornly refuse to follow suit). Then again, they're all largely irrelevant anyway (sorry Arch, Debian, Fedora, PCLOS, Redhat, etc...) Ubuntu is the only distro (and Canonical is the only company) that has a chance in the larger scheme of things. All the other distros just don't matter (and they're not in it for that reason anyway) so an extra layer of irrelevance shouldn't bother them (until and unless certain video drivers only work with certain display servers). That's when all the little wheels will start squeaking very loudly.
    I strongly disagree. These other distros carry a significance that vastly outweighs their adoption numbers, in that they can (theoretically) act as a curb on Ubuntu's darker impulses (if any). Keep in mind that moving from Ubuntu to Debian or Mageia or Fedora isn't like moving from Windows to Linux. Linux users are notorious distro-hoppers; just because they've settled on one distro doesn't mean they haven't tried a few others (most have). I suspect that whichever distro is the EASIEST is the one that's going to be the top dog. That's Ubuntu's strength right now (although with Unity some of that has passed off to Mint - I recently switched from Raring Ringtail to Mint 14 XFCE and Pear 6 on my netbook). If Canonical gets too big for its britches, eventually it'll make a Windows 8-like, boneheaded, arrogant move that will turn everyone off. The last thing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of users will do with their Ubuntu volume is download a competing distro's ISO image and burn it to DVD before using it to whisk Ubuntu off to Never-Never Land. Canonical has to be aware of this, especially with MS's woes right now. They know that it's much easier to switch to a different distro than it is from Windows to Linux. These "irrelevant" distros you mention are the reason why. So while they may never have significant user share, they will continue to have significant effect.

    Personally, though, I like by and large what Canonical's been doing. The Linux success stories (server systems, Android, Roku, etc.) have all come from systems that know and are appropriate for the target user. The reason Linux has failed in the desktop up till now is that it didn't address the target user, but the developer. Canonical changed that. Ubuntu and its derivatives are incredibly easy to install, set up, navigate, use (including program installation) and maintain. That is what desktop users want - the minimum number of steps, the minimum (preferably zero) commands typed for the maximum effect and utility. (It's funny how all the difficulties in Win 8 are pure bull, but all the difficulties in Linux have very good reasons, oh yes, yes they do.) The computer was the province of geeks (in the worst sense of the word) till Apple popularized Mac's GUI. That should have registered with Linux developers. Instead, we got happy horse**** about philosophy and open-source purity, none of which meant a damn because the optical drive still won't work and the screen melts like film stuck in a projector every time I boot up. Canonical changed that. They made usability and ease their goal and have been the most successful at it. If their success leads them away from that in the future, the alternative distros are chomping at their heels. If it doesn't, I don't care how it gets accomplished. Like 99% of all computer users, I just want the damn thing to work. As far as Ubuntu becoming an open-source Windows - if by that one means a set standard with a large user base that software developers can target and get PAID for developing professional standard programs (and Linux multimedia ain't that - the pros all use Windows or Mac), then I'm all for it. Like I said, as long as the OS is open source I don't care if the programs on it are open source or proprietary. I just want them to work and live up to their billing.
    Last edited by Bill Tetzeli; May 14th, 2013 at 05:59 AM.

  10. #120
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Beans
    19

    Re: Mir vs. Wayland & effect on Linux "Ecosystem"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Tetzeli View Post
    I strongly disagree. These other distros carry a significance that vastly outweighs their adoption numbers, in that they can (theoretically) act as a curb on Ubuntu's darker impulses (if any). Keep in mind that moving from Ubuntu to Debian or Mageia or Fedora isn't like moving from Windows to Linux. Linux users are notorious distro-hoppers; just because they've settled on one distro doesn't mean they haven't tried a few others (most have). I suspect that whichever distro is the EASIEST is the one that's going to be the top dog. That's Ubuntu's strength right now (although with Unity some of that has passed off to Mint - I recently switched from Raring Ringtail to Mint 14 XFCE and Pear 6 on my netbook). If Canonical gets too big for its britches, eventually it'll make a Windows 8-like, boneheaded, arrogant move that will turn everyone off. The last thing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of users will do with their Ubuntu volume is download a competing distro's ISO image and burn it to DVD before using it to whisk Ubuntu off to Never-Never Land. Canonical has to be aware of this, especially with MS's woes right now. They know that it's much easier to switch to a different distro than it is from Windows to Linux. These "irrelevant" distros you mention are the reason why. So while they may never have significant user share, they will continue to have significant effect.

    Personally, though, I like by and large what Canonical's been doing. The Linux success stories (server systems, Android, Roku, etc.) have all come from systems that know and are appropriate for the target user. The reason Linux has failed in the desktop up till now is that it didn't address the target user, but the developer. Canonical changed that. Ubuntu and its derivatives are incredibly easy to install, set up, navigate, use (including program installation) and maintain. That is what desktop users want - the minimum number of steps, the minimum (preferably zero) commands typed for the maximum effect and utility. (It's funny how all the difficulties in Win 8 are pure bull, but all the difficulties in Linux have very good reasons, oh yes, yes they do.) The computer was the province of geeks (in the worst sense of the word) till Apple popularized Mac's GUI. That should have registered with Linux developers. Instead, we got happy horse**** about philosophy and open-source purity, none of which meant a damn because the optical drive still won't work and the screen melts like film stuck in a projector every time I boot up. Canonical changed that. They made usability and ease their goal and have been the most successful at it. If their success leads them away from that in the future, the alternative distros are chomping at their heels. If it doesn't, I don't care how it gets accomplished. Like 99% of all computer users, I just want the damn thing to work. As far as Ubuntu becoming an open-source Windows - if by that one means a set standard with a large user base that software developers can target and get PAID for developing professional standard programs (and Linux multimedia ain't that - the pros all use Windows or Mac), then I'm all for it. Like I said, as long as the OS is open source I don't care if the programs on it are open source or proprietary. I just want them to work and live up to their billing.
    Why can you not use a closed source os if it do what it is supposed to do. What is the point with using ubuntu over osx if osx work at least as good and has better support for the closed source program you say you need?

Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •